See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226046511

An evaluation of voice stress analysis techniques in a simulated AWACS

environment

Article  in  International Journal of Speech Technology · May 1997

DOI: 10.1007/BF02539823

CITATIONS READS

6 69

5 authors, including:

Jerome J. Congleton Kevin Mcsweeney

Texas A&M University American Bureau of Shipping
62 PUBLICATIONS   864 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   87 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing an Integrated Offshore Energy Industry Safety Culture Evaluation and Improvement Toolbox View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jerome J. Congleton on 03 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VC m

n a. I .(,In T.oVV nbn.

S-Voice Stress "Lch. . ..a 'Lr.

It--

K SMU

\t lA. Ap

" - p->. forp /

V -ai7j ' •i " " ". -
÷ : :•:~~.: Wi .i D tb,
_ . ..
ch . .r . .o
es . r.•-
.,!: . ... .. -. . . - ° .,. .. . .

ax ----- -- '.
a•. %
 R tc P v' FDr ) UA4ErqITA1'Kf; PAI~E

August 1990 JThesis s44o

MLE ;'4D SiJ' L' - CUN 'tC MU2Ns
An Evaluation of Voice Stress Analysis Techniques in a
Simulated AWACS, Environment

William Archer Jones, Jr.

AFII2 Student at: Texas AMM University AI/ICA-9-1

Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433

A Abji. -AT L' TbIvKY

Approved for Public Release IAW AFR 190-1

Distribution Unlimited
ERNEST A. HAYGOOD, 1st Lt, USAF
Executive Officer, Civilian Institution Pro~grams

59

UNCLASSIFIED
 GYNE.ALX ýNSTIU i!S OCOW'ALETING F 2993
T7he Repor Dom anm to :q- (RtOP) isued in ai nciunonq anod car loi no reporls. II is irfoloFý
that -wi van!o~ SI' Ow'i io of~'.rthe repnt Imcliuilarly the coveor and tifle page.
~~'v':
In~ra ro2~or - a Ow. 'tarn fo~1ow It is Oparlart to stay witAM the lines LO meet.

Bloc vvov q
. (hem",!
1L'>My Wok1?..Drruro/viQ~ytt' I
cualK vniauty or FF0 tllions, Cit o ny
L1~'o(,~o$o,
O w own" ^, d v ,i bl e i .1t00 nt'/q -,o r s1p'.2ao
e d Ia ma r g i nA !o o nal

'Blo ck rt'' Q aqo pa w QIg~

.
DO e eD).5 3,,E sh
Stt Ow m t. mwvi int to, Man'h3:
,-. o
'U. Documrents.
DUEi Me cruthabrrtC
BWocý:i :':!;erK -.. . Andwor: akmen ran? MASA se?'2 Hand'book r-41B 2200.2.
thiC r:oe'.ir ~ ~ wri
NI .cave blaink.
Le

FIF1(1dO fC'F;UQ" C.U. iqrr~~F~It?

U) ''' Ol or vr~~r'DOD'
r('i~~~~~~~e~
. . FiO rr eWd\ alc<0'Fk . i.$rb
! to

arla ;rc-) b'

')tim Po or c las
nt' rr umbed?( NAS ortsban

rrumber(P.'I orlEF kea.maiunh~er(sy U s;o tho NTIS LeciV.vle b 1-1

(.Pro P ~o2c.Block 13. Abta c d reF (Max ifrtf

6i KI ~ 1A lr 200 ,,oid5) factual sulJFYimEy o-r ',he wio'sr

PE prq"I V -1J vvorl' UitrI sk.1nificzainn maor~tiorn (ontaneg in the report.

~Io~:~
~ . .' '~ h r-.'~t) Eock 14. ~'h~tCrisKeyvvords or ph' s,?

Block. 1S. Nirlroe

WWWar}2 E nter thor total
.1 1- ____Pago"._

,iriOSell
it (J I r

5c t.,! I'S S r i on" F eir.t?

0' V . 'noltckI F'' If V I

.. (j 7 f

AfAL.L MR
 AN EVALUATION OF
VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
IN A SIMULATED AWACS ENVIRONMENT

A Thesis
by
WILLIAM ARCHER JONES, JR.

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partai fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Acoession Fo,
NTIS GRA&1
DTIO TAB
Unannounoed Q
.7ustifioation-
August 1990 Dy
Distribution/
Availability Codes
Avail and/or
Diat Special
Major Subject: Industrial Engineering

Approved for public relea•e;-

Dis tribution Tin limited
 AN EVALUATION OF
VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
IN A SIMULATED AWACS ENVIRONMENT

A Thesis
by

WILLIAM ARCHER JONES, JR.

Approved as to style and content by:

,4IJerome J~ongleof
"(ChairorCommittee)

R. Dale Huching
(Member) c.,-

Samuel G. Schifef! ALK.Bcnnet

(Member) ,Iead of Department)

August 1990
 iii

ABSTRACT

An Evaluation of Voice Stress Analysis Techniques

in a Simulated AWACS Environment. (August 1990)

William Archer Jones, Jr., B.S., U.S. Air Force Academy

Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Jerome J. Congleton

The purpose of this study was to determine if voice analysis algorithms are an

effective measure of stress resulting from high workload. Fundamental frequency,

frequency jitter, and amplitude shimmer algorithms were employed to measure the
effects of stress in crewmember communications data in simulated AWACS mission

scenarios.
Two inuependent workload measures were used to identify levels of stress: 1) a
predictor model developed by the simulation author based upon scenario generated
stimulus events, and 2) the duration of communication for each weapons director,
representative of the individual's response to the induced stress. Between eight and
eleven speech samples were analyzed for each of the sixteen Air Force officers who

participated in the study.

Results identified fundamental frequency and frequency jitter as statistically

significant vocal indicators of stress, while amplitude shimmer showed no signs of any

significant relationship with workload or stress. Consistent with previous research, the
frequency algorithm was identified as the most reliable measure. However, the results

did not reveal a sensitive discrimination measure between levels of stress, but rather,
did distinguish between the presence or absence of stress.
The results illustrate a significant relationship between fundamental frequency
and the effects of stress and also a significant inverse relationship with jitter, though , ,
 iv

Th>' less dramatic. Applied research in this area must investigate the predictive power,
within subjects, of these measurement techniques. • # . r
 V

ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS

I can't begin to thank all the people who invested their time and energy into me
during my tenure here at A&M.
A hearty thanks to Dr. Jerome J. Congleton, committee chairman, for your
vision in the summer of '88 and constant support since. Thank you Dr. R. Dale
Huchingson, for the wealth of knowledge and experience you shared wiih me during
my stay . A special thanks to Dr. Schiflett and my new family at the School of
Aerospace Medicine, for taking care of me and for all the great memories. I want to
mention you all by name but I don't have five t itra pages. To Tom Doherty, thanks
for the software and patience needed to accomplish the goal. A big thanks goes out to
my Homey, Lt Slater. Tim, I couldn't have done it without youl
Eternal thanks to my family, who are, and always will be, pillars of strength
and love. Thanks Pastor Jeff, Marianne, and the Church for the love and
encouragement I've received. Between you all, I know there were prayers for me
heard in Heaven that could move 1000 mountains. Terri, thank you, just for being you
and giving me the TLC I needed to "keep the Faith".
Thank You, Jesu:,, for Your faithfu'ness and grace to guide and sustain me.
Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the flst and great commandment. And the
second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets". St. Matthew 22: 37-40
 vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT ................................................................................ iii

ACKNOW LEDGEMENTS ................................................................ v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................... ............................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................... ............... vii
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 5
Subjects .............................................................................. 5
Apparatus ............................................................................ 6
AESOP Facility ............................................................ 6
Simulation Scenarios ...................................................... 7
Data Reduction Software ................................................. 8
Procedure ............................................................................ 11

Experimental Design ............................................................... 11

RESULTS .................................................................................... 13
Predictor Model .................................................................... 13
Duration of Communication .................................................. . 17
DISCUSSION .................... ............ 19
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 22
REFERENCES .............................................................................. 25

APPENDIX
A. BROOKS AFB RESEARCH PROTOCOL .............................. 27
B. SUBJECT DATA ...................................................... . 40
C. SPEECH ANALYSIS SUMMARY DATA .............................. 42
D. STATISTICAL RESULTS FROM ANOVA,
REGRESSION, AND CORRELATION DATA ........................ 51
VITA .......................................................................................... 59
 vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Laboratory configuration of the AWACS WY)
crewstation (C3 GW ) .......................................................... . 7
2. Graph of predictor model workload
measurement .... 4. .......... .........
. .. ..... 9
3. Graph of duration of comir nication
workload measurement .... .......... ...................... 9
4. Optional graphic display during pitch extraction
in SW IFFT .......................................................................... 10

5. Predictor model analysis as a function of

frequency, jitter, and shimm er .................................................... 13
6, Predictor model regression slopes of activity vs
frequency ............................................................................ 15
7. Predictor model regression slopes of activity vs
jitter .............. .... .
# ..... .. .... ... 15
8. Predictor model regression slopes of activity vs
shim m er .......................................................... 6................... 16

9. Duration of communication regression slopes of

seconds vs frequency ................. ... ........................ 6.... 17
10. Duration of communication regression slopes of
seconds vs jitter ..................................................................... 18
11. Duration of communication regression slopes of
seconds vs shimmer ... ...................... 18
 INTRODUCTION

Psychological stress has been defined by researchers as a psychological state of

tension that is a response to a perceived threat, accompanied by a specific emotion such
as fear, anxiety, or anger (Biers, 1984). Due to the debilitating effects of this
phenomenon on human performance, a variety of studies have addressed the causes of
psychological stress, its impact on performance tasks, and how to measure its effects.
Discussion of this topic relies, in part, on having a logical connection between the
concepts of psychological stress and workload.
Although there is no universal agreement among researchers as to what
constitutes workload, threc: general components are widely accepted: 1) a "busyness"
factor characterized by time stress, a high frequency of cognitive involvement which
incoiporates higher attention demand, 2) a complexity factor that involves more difficult
tasks requiring greater mental load, and 3) a psychological or emotional factor directly
related to an individual's ability to cope (Biers, 1984). Laboratory experimentation of
high workload environments attempt to artificially induce these three characteristics
through stimulus manipulation, but a quantifiable and consistent stressor has proven to
be elusive.
Measures of operator workload have been under scrutiny for years without a
specific technique recommended as the definitive measure of workload, due to the
multi-dimensionality of stress inherent in an operational setting (Gartner and Murphy,
1976 and Roscoe, 1978). Ideally, a technique should be objective and quantifiable,
simple to collect and analyze, reliable across individuals, and a non-obtrusive stress
measure readily applicable to dynamic field environments (Schiflett and Loikith, 1980).

This thesis follows the form and style of Hwnan Factors.

 2

Studies involving subjective workload assessment (SWAT) are non-obtrusive;

however, they are subjective in nature and time-intensive in evaluation (Shingledecker
and Crabtree, 1982). Physiological measures of stress involving heart rate, blood
pressure, electromyographic (EMG) techniques, and measurement of pupil dilation are
all proven objective measurements of stress (trenner and S!ipp, 1982). The
equipment necessary for metrics of this kind are obtrusive and interfere with operator
performance. Another measure of stress, which is an objective component and is
potentially non-obtrusive, involves verbal communication in conjunction with the
completion of a task.
There is sufficient evidence that acoustic parameters of the human voice provide
reliable indicators of psychological stress (Schafer and Rabiner, 1975; Branscomb,
1979; Cannings, 1979; Schiflett and Loikith, 1980; Brenner and Shipp, 1988; Ruiz,
Legros, and Guell, 1990). The aerospace community has been active in research
involving voice stress analysis in support of the pilot and other crewmembers due to the
increasing demands placed upon them by the technological advances seen iv modtmrn
cockpits. Man has literally become the limiting factor in aerospace weapon systems
because of our inability to process large quantities of information in an efficient
manner. The increased potential of voice stress analysis in comparison to other stress
measures is threefold: 1) it provides a non-obtrusive measure of pilot workload, 2)
voice indicators of stress may provide warning informatlon of an individual's inability
to perform a given task, thereby, aiding in aircraft accident investigations, and 3) to
determine the effects of stress on speech signal characteristics in voice actuated control
technologies (Biers, 1984).
Current research has focused on seven candidate voice measures which show
the greatest promise of responding to psychological stress. The measures include: 1)
fundamental frequency (pitch) -under stress, pitch of the voice increases, 2) frequency
 3

jitter - under stress, the variability of pitch in the voice (jitter) decreases, 3) amplitude

(loudness) - under stress, amplitude increases, 4) amplitude shimmer - under stress,

variability of amplitude in the voice (shimmer) decreases, 5) psycholgical stress

evaluator (PSE) scores - under stress, computer-derived PSE scores increase, 6)

speech rate - under stress, the rate of Epeech increases, and 7) energy distribution -
under stress, the proportion of energy between 500-1000 Hz increases (Brenner and
Shipp, 1988; Kuroda et al., 1976; Schiflett and Loikith, 1980; and Scherer, 1981).

Amplitude has only limited application in environments with consistent control over
both distance and angle of the recording device to the crewmember's mouth and thus,
may prove impractical for operational settings. Equipnment and software were not
available to include the PSE, speech rate, and energy distribution techniques, therefore,
the present study will incorporate fundamental frequency, frequency jitter, and

amplitude shimmer only.

A literature review investigating the utility of these voice measures "in the field"

reveals inconclusive evidence as ., their validity (Biers, 1984). However, the nature of
the evidence must be challenged. The vocal parameters themselves may be sound, but
the adequacy of the stressors employed are in question. Previous research, conducted
in clinical settings with voice and physiological parameters of stress, has shown
positive correlation between these measures (Brenner and Branscomb, 1981; Brenner
and Shipp, 1982; and Brenner et al, 1983).
This study employed a similar approach to evaluate voice stress measures

involving non-obtrusive, independent criterion of psychological stress. Brenner and

Shipp (1988) found several significant relationships between their chosen voice
measures and artificially induced levels of stress. The present study utilized three of the

same vocal measures but extended the research beyond simple synthetic laboratory
tasks to a complex decision-making study, where situational stress was not artificially
 4

produced but the result of a realistic and dynamic military mission. Manipulation of

this worldoad.*intensive simulation and direct measurement of specified tasks within the
simulation scenario provided the independent measures to effectively evaluate the
chosen voice measures of stress.

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate and comparm fundamental

frequency, frequency jitter, and amplitude shimmer algorithms as voice stress

measurement techniques in the analysis of crewmember communications data from a

simulated Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) mission scenario. A

regression and correlation analysis between the three dependent voice measurement

techniques and two independent workload measures allowed for comparison with

previous research results and provided insight as to potential applications in voice strss

analysis technology.
 5

METHODOLOGY

The methodology cx this experiment was driven by the research protocol,

"Comparative Effects of Antihistamines on Aircrew Under Sustained Operations",
developed in accordance with USAF commitments to the Joint Working Group on
Drug Dependent Degradation (JWGD3) of Military Performance (See protocol in
Appendix A). This triservice project evaluated a nonsedative antihistamine medication
terfenadine (Seldane) against a placebo condition and a positive control
diphenhydramine (Benadryl), using complex Command, Control, and Communications
(C3 ) tasks and a variety of performance measures, including voice stress analysis. A

second objective was to assess the performance degradation of individual and team
performance produced by the C3 scenarios of high and low workload (Eddy, 1989 and
1990).
Although the primary goals of tie USAF project were drug related, the placebo
and Seldane groups were analyzed in the present study without respect to different
medication conditions. A repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used
to compare Medication X Time and no significant differences were found between the
Seldane medication and placebo effects (C. Oakley, personal communication, May 1,
1990). Therefore, speech communications from both groups were used for the stress
analysis data.

Subjects

Sixteen Air Force officers (thirteen male and three female with an average age of
26) from the 5 5 2d Air Wing, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, were assigned to
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, to spend their work week in support of the study. The
 6

subjects were all weapon directors (WDs) with between 265-2000 hours of flight and
simulator time logged (See subject data in Appendix B). All participants had previously
volunteered for the study. WDs are primarily responsible for C3 missions in the
airborne environment. The E-3A AWACS aircraft is the platform from which WDs
accomplish their mission. All subjects signed the, Advisory Committee on Human
Experimentation (ACHE) approved consent form prior to any data collection and female
subjects had a pregnancy test within the previous thirty days and signed a pregnancy
disclaimer (Appendix A).

AR~aratus

AESOP Faciliy.• The Aircrew Evaluation Sustained Operations Performance

(AESOP) facility provides a flexible and realistic operational environment that supports
Department of Defense (DoD) research in a variety of aerospace and space applications.
Integration of hardware and software resources produced seven empirically derived air
defense AWACS scenarios. Laboratory configuration consisted of Command,
Control, and Communications Generic Workstations (C3 GW) which provided realistic
mission simulation, tasks, controls, and authentic graphic displays replicating the
functions of the AWACS WD crewstation (Figure 1).
AESOP assets also consist of supporting VAX, MicroVAX III, and VAX
Station computer systems, a 16-channel RACAL FM recorder, video cameras, and a
10-node audio communication network which provides audio communication during
simulations. This research tool allows the military services to develop and transition
performance enhancement techniques and methods of analysis from the laboratory to
field test experiments, and eventually to actual military operations.
 7

_..
.........
IIIIi

Figure 1. Laboratory configuration of the AWACS WD crewstation (C3GW),

Simulation Scenarios. The simulation scenarios were designed to provide

clearly challenging work environments in order to produce psychological and
physiological differences within subjects tested. As the validity of voice stress effects
had been a stumbling block in past research (Biers, 1984), the primary concern in
development of these scenarios was to place realistic task demands on WDs and have
an accurate system of measurement to capture performance data,
 8

A Defensive Counter Air mission (DCA) was utilized because it encompassed

the widest variety of WD performance tasks. The DCA mission consists of operations
conducted to detect, identify, intercept, and destroy enemy aircraft attempting to

penetrate friendly airspace. Each scenario was based on a standard enemy attack of
four waves. Figure 2 is a model of the predicted workload throughout a three-hour

scenario, measured in terms of WD activity units per five minute interval. Minutes 0-
15 represent the baseline level area, while the four waves are depicted by the rise in

activity units at minutes 30, 60, 90, and 120. Figure 3 is a graph of a typical individual
WD's measured duiration of communication per five minute interval,

L'.jh jcig S Analog-to-digital (A/D) and digital-to-analog (D/A)

conversion software, as well as digital scoring algorithms of each stress metric were
programs (written in TurboPascal 5.0) developed and provided by E. Thomas Doherty,
Ph.D., of the Speech Research Laboratory, San Francisco, California. A Zenith 248
PC configured with a math coprocessor and a Data Translation A/D board # DT-2801A
was used to run the analysis software. A Kron-hite filter created a bandpass of 20-
3000 Hz through which all speech data traveled from the RACAL recorder to the
computer A/D system. The filter eliminated frequency data in the signal that, in the
present application, was considered "noise", to ensure clean and easily recognizable
pitch periods for the analysis programs.
Four specific menu-driven programs were available for data reduction (Doherty,
1989). Targeted periods of communication were digitized from the analog tapes using
the ADC software program. The parameters of 10,000 samples per second, for one
channel, and a gain of four was used. ADC produced an output file read by the pitch
extraction program, SWIFFT. This automated program inputs the digitized speech and
displays it in an analog format on the screen. Still in the time domain, SWIFFT uses a
 200--

007E
160 EEH-±--
------.---
140 "00 -----
-
.......
z 120

~100-0
F80
60

40-0

20 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 180 180

TIME (min)
Figure 2. Graph of predictor model workload measurement.

120

40

20 40 8D 80 10 120 140 160

TIME (min)

Figure 3. Graph of duration of communication workload measurement.

 10

-, . . .. I . 0 I

D~G. 1TiII.V 16

k. vJi tit,'. 1,0472 Z.

S(- ,•s ") ,, , ,A Shitme,':
Period: 7.21041 ms
A] Start:
14.4929 V
0.1491 s
|•x p: 0Avp 140.7376 v
. "t FO, : 13 .0 46 4.
- I t teae': .1.6007 Z
tart:
S 0.1564 ss
Pe rioad,: 7.22413

-ý.Ayp.0.8460 V
0 FO~P:
- i ttor: i
L36'.97
0.0995 Hb
IZ
V.

S-Shimmojr: 362

Figure 4. Optional graphic display during pitch extraction in SWIFFT. The wave form
of each period may be shown to permit visual confirmation of correct markings of
successive cycle boundaries.

peak-to-peak scoring algorithm to determine fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer,

and amplitude (Figure 4).
The FOCONV program reads the SWIFFT output and produces data files listing
extraction values for each pitch period and a summary table of mean speech analysis
values for that utterance (Summary data in Appendix C). TRUNCA2D is a program
which allows the analyst to truncate just the relevant periods of speech so as to ease
manipulation and storage of the digitized data.
 11

Procedure

Subject WDs arrived at Brooks AFB on Sunday evening for a preliminary

briefing. Training began on Monday, with a pre-brief beginning at 1130 hours and a
three hour training scenario to familiarize them with the simulated AWACS
crewstations and flight missions.
Teams were tested in two, three and a half hour scenarios per day on Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday. The more difficult simulation on Thursday, the Aaragon
scenario, was chosen as the target simulation for this study because any confounding
measures of stress due to the unfamiliar environment, new crewmembers, or learning
curves were minimized by the third day of testing.
The 16-channel RACAL FM recorder taped all speech inputs through the Audio
Distribution System (ADS) so the data could be collected for A/D conversion and
analysis. After thorough review, sampled speech utterances were time-stamped and
captured using the data reduction software. The human voice is an extremely dynamic
environment to measure and the value of a vocal parameter can be content-dependent.
Therefore, the selection of a consistent voiced utterance within subjects was imperative
for accurate analysis. The voiced sequences of the words "Roger" and "Copy" were
most often used, depending on the individual's most common vocabulary. Sampled
utterances were most often targeted when attached to a string of words to negate any
possible confounding affects from a single word.

Ex ntal Desgn

Individuals have their own unique voice print, much like fingerprints. The design
of this experiment responded to the fact that the absolute values of the WD's voice
 12

parameters were of little value, when comparing between individuals. Data was
analyzed in terms of relative changes in voice throughout the simulation profile, by
utilizing within subjects analyses.
Two independent measures of stress were employed to identify times of high
workload in the scenario. The predictor model provided simulation-dtpendent
workload measures. The simulation author developed this model, based upon scenario
manipulations such as number of hostile aircraft launched, using WD activity units per
five minute interval as a measure of workload. Activity units are defined as the
summation of 1)the number of footswitch microphone activations and 2) the number of
tactical bearing and range, commit, and reinitiate button pusheg. The duration metric
provided individual WD-dependent data, based upon the crewmembers' reaction to
scenario events. The WD's duration of communication within five minute intervals
was considered an accurate measure since their primary duty is to communicate C3
information between the AWACS and pilots under their control. The three voice
measures of stress (fundamental frequency, jitter, and shimmer) were the dependent
measures.
A two-way, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used
to evaluate the ability of the three voice algorithms to distinguish between five levels
within the predictor model (baseline, low, medium, high-i, and high-2). Only the
predictor model allowed for this analysis because the defined stress levels were
consistent between subjects. Duncan's multiple range test was used for specific post-
hoc comparisons between treatment means. A within subjects simple regression and
correlation analysis was also employed to determine if a relationship exists (and to what
extent) between the voice stress algorithms and each of the workload measures.
 13

RESULTS

flrediQLt M~de

The relationship between the five levels of workload (defined by the predictor
model) as a function of frequency, jitter, and shimmer means is depicted in Figure 5.

Data from "FREG MEANS" Data from "JITTER MEANS"

160 1.3 .
-" 1.2
>. 150 0- 1,1 ... ....
*"-
100
14aaaaaaa0"-
ai- ,. .. . .... -a 0.8 . . .
130 BASE LO MED HI W2 0.7 BASE
: " LO•: MED
• HI: - H2

WORKLOAD LEVELS WORKLOAD LEVELS

Data from "SHIMMER MEANS"

10.8
...10.6 .. . .

10.2
10.0
" 9.8
UM)

BASE LO MED HI H2
WORKLOAD LEVELS

Figure 5. Predictor model analysis means as a function of frequency (upper left), jitter
(upper right), and shimmer (bottom) at five levels of workload.
 14

An ANOVA revealed that significant effects were obtained with the fundamental
frequency measure, E(4,15) = 7.63,11<.000l. Follow-up Duncan's multiple range
tests of the data show the baseline grouping to be significantly different from the four
other levels of stress at (pt<.01) and different from the med, hi, h2 levels at (J1.001).
No other statistically significant differences exist between the workload levels. Both
frequency jitter and amplitude shimmer parameters of voice were found to have no
significant differences (See ANOVA tables in Appendix D).
Simple linear regression analysis was run on each WD (within subjects) to
study the relationship between the three dependent variables and the predictor model
(Appendix D includes WD regression and correlation values). The results showed the
frequency measurement to be positively correlated with levels of stress in 15 of the 16
subjects (Figure 6). The pooled correlation was significant at the (1<.000) level (See
Table 1).

Table 1.
Pooled regression and correlation data.

Measure N slope P-Value R-Value

Model Frequency 80 .163390 .0001 .616

Model Jitter s0 -. 002909 .0245 -. 323
Model Shimmer so .002996 .6406 .103
Duration Frequency 153 .271899 .0001 .591
Duration Jitter 153 -. 006140 .0171 -. 214
Duration shimmer 153 -. 016453 .3424 -. 124
 15
260

240

220fv? loe

200. . o~at~o Vopos

............

1140-

660

1o0

ACTIVITY UNITS1

Figure 6. Predictor model regression slopes of activity vs frequency.

Slopes
POStIOVS

... Negalive Slopes

2.

.. . . . . .,. ...
. .

0.
TO' 110 ;GO 1; '140 '4
AM' IVITY UNITS

Figure 7. Predictor model regression slopes of activity vs jitter.

 16

Positive &lop#$

0 20 g *bo o °°iiu t i4,,

4 ,
AOTIMVY UNRti

Figure 8. Predictor model regression slopes of activity vs shimmer.

A similar, though not as obvious, relationship was found to exist in the analysis of
jitter, with 11 of the 16 negative slopes (Figure 7). Pooled data showed a significantly
negative relationship with levels of stress (<.I05). Shimmer data revealed no

significant relationship and approximately half of the slopes were found to be in a

positive direction (Figure 8).
 17

DurationQ Communicin

Total time involved in subject communication varied from 4-147 seconds within
each five minute interval. The results of the duration of communication data analysis
was similar to the model data results, but with a higher degree of confidence. The
number of speech samples were increased per WD and the fundamental frequency
measure showed a significantly (p.<.0001) positive relationship, with all slopes
following an upward trend (Figure 9). Jitter values were also shown to be
significantly correlated (p<.05), but in the negative direction, as shown in Figure 10.
Once again, the shimmer measure has shown no significant negative relationship with
the duration of communication workload metric (Figure 11).

260.

240.

220- Potive Slopes

2N.. Negative S;lopes

ISO.

LU 140-

120.

100.

so.

Go 0. . . 2b
.. . b " " o •k " 6,o
0"" "1"
i o ' il"
DURATION OF COMMUNICATION (SiC)

Figa.re 9. Duration of communication regression slopes of seconds vs frequency.

 18

.Negalive Slopesl

2 .

.21

.20 20 40 so 0s 100 120 ¶40 161)

Figure 10. Duration of communication, regression slopes of seconds vs jitter.

15 ** ~ - Po$itive slopes
Negative Slopes

..............

w 15-
...............

5..

0 20 40 0o so 100 120 140 w0

DURATION OF COMMUNICATION (SEC)

'Figure 11. Duration of communication regression slopes of seconds vs shimmer.

 19

DISCUSSION

The voice stress measurement results showed a consistent pattern with both the

simulation-dependent predictor model of workload and the individual WD-dependent

metric. The findings of this study are similar to previous results found by Brenner and

Shipp (1988). For example, fundamental frequency proves to be the most salient vocal
indicator of psychological stress. The frequency jitter measure responded in the

predicted fashion, but with marginal statistical significance and less confidence.
Amplitude shimmer produced insignificant results and showed no promising trends of a

potential relationship with the effects of stress.

In the ANOVA, the variabilities in pitch and amplitude were found to have no
significance, but highly significant fundamental frequency results indicate the
measureds ability to recognize a difference in levels of stress, even though its sensitivity

to disceiminate between the five levels was found to be unsatisfactory. In operational

terms, this study reveals that an individual's vocal pitch can distinguish between

whether the WD is pre-flighting hi,-. system on the ground vs flying, but not whether he
is in combat or controlling for a refueling mission. However, this does not mean that

this voice measure has no potential operadional application. Perhaps these findings are

a result of the model representations of medium, hl, and h2 being too close together.
The disparity between the medium level of activity and the h2 level is only 15 units.

The model's peaks were selected for analysis to coincide with the scenario's high

workload stimuli based on engagement of enemy aircraft waves.

The predictor model represented high task-loading events from the scenario but

not every WD responds at the same time or in the same way to a given stimulus in the

simulation. The crewmembers work in teams of three and an individual WD's reaction
to the model's representation of high workload is a direct result of team interaction.
 20

The team may be running behind on a mission and the actual stress effect may not be
confronted until five or ten minutes after the scenario stimulus was engaged; and that

loading may last throughout the initiation of the next stimulus. The fact that high task-
loading occurred in the scenario is not the question; it is whether the predictor model
identified the coirect sequence of tirae related to subject speech. It may have occurred
earlier or later or may not have been manifested in the words "Roger" or "Copy".
Regression analysis presented a positive relationship between the predictor
model and the frequency measure and a negative slope relationship with the jitter
technique. As displayed in Figures 6 and 7, the trend is extremely strong with
frequency but jitter shows a much less consistent trend. Shimmer reflects no consistent
trend in either direction as is evident in Figure 8, when a negative slope was the
expected result.
The increased number of speech samples per WD and subject specific nature of
the duration workload measure, resulted in greater statistical evidence of a positively
correlated relationship with frequency and a negatively correlated one with jitter.
Figure 9 exhibits a consistent trend with every regression line having a positive slope.
Jitter has some regression lines that are not in the expected direction (Figure 10), so
confidence of this result is not as strong. The shimmer measure shows no degree of
sensitivity to the chosen voice measures. Figure 11 shows the random spread of slopes
in both directions.
The duration of communication workload measure was more representative of
the individual effects of stress that WDs experienced during the simulation, since it was
empirically derived. Task-loading variance between subjects was taken into account in
this measure, but the adopted definition of workload could be questioned. The WD's
primary duty is vocal communication, however, during a five minute interval of high
communication, the person could conceivably become stressed and unstressed several
 21

times. Decreasing the intervals of time would identify more distinct high workload
areas but finding similar utterances throughout the scenario within such small periods
would prove impossible in the present application.
 22

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

This study utilized fundamental frequency, frequency jitter, and amplitude

shimmer algorithms as voice stress measurement techniques in the analysis of
crewmember communications data from a simulated AWACS mission scenario. The
results of the study suggest that a consistent relationship exists between the frequency
measure and levels of stress, while a less consistent inverse relationship exists between
the jitter measurement and stress. Shimmer measurements reveal no consistent trends
with high workload or stress.
The predictive correlational value of the results is not strong, but that was not
the intent. Voice characteristics vary greatly among individuals. One can not expect an
average positive slope correlated with workload, regardless of how many subjects run,
to hold accurate predictive information as to an individual's voice response. What this
data does show, is a confident relationship between fundamental frequency and high
workload. This relationship substantiates the need for individual voice mapping to
identify one person's characteristics to provide a predictive model of stress from the
frequency measure.
The results of this study seem to follow past research and has identified
fundamental frequency as the best vocal indicator of stress. Many are skeptical as to
the potential of vocal indicators of stress and their application to operational
environments. These parameters of speech may be undetectable in human
conversation, but there is a relationship that seems to exist with possible application to
the space and aerospace environment. Evaluating the different methods of measuring
voice stress allows a more accurate analysis of workload-induced stress and greater
flexibility in the application of stress analysis. These results not only provide data
essential to the improvement of operational efficiency, but more importantly, the
 23

opportunity to preserve human lives through the notification of potentially hazardous

conditions.
Future studies need to recognize the necessity for definitive independent stress

measures to allow more conclusive evidence involving research of vocal indicators of

stress. Objective physiological data is one accurate mode of measurement but due to
the required fidelity of this AWACS simulation, all obtrusive measuring devices were
not included. Also, this study was limited to only the raw individual performance

measures collected from the AWACS data. Processed individual performance data, that

will be provided by researchers at Brooks AFB in the near future, should increase the
accuracy and precision of identifying specific workload occurrences. The need for
accurate assessment techniques of specific times that individuals are stressed, can not

be emphasized enough.
Continued research in this area is required to provide reliable measures of

workload and stress. Detailed performance data from the Brooks AFB AWACS study
should be used as independent workload measures to evaluate these and other methods
of voice stress analysis. Also physiological measurement techniques should be

employed whenever possible to allow accurate evidence of subject stress. The

predictive power of these voice indicators, within subjects, is worthy of closer

investigation. Greater samples per subject, to establish a regression line may prove to

be a predictive tool as to that subject's workload and stress level.

This research confirms previous claims as to the potential for speech

measurement as a non-obtrusive assessment of pilot workload and stress. Its

applications extend from aiding in the investigation of aircraft accidents and mishaps to
forecasting pilot disfunction caused by overload to providing filter algorithms to modify

crewmember speech input in sensitive speaker-dependent voice recognition systems.

 24

Voice stress analysis is maturing as a research area and promises a bright future in
manned aerospace and space technologies.
 25

REFERENCES

Biers, D. W. (1Q84). _Yj stress aa workload measure: Review. f th literature and

recommendations frr frth azldt. Final report, Contract N00421-83-D-
0027, Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Maryland.

Branscomb, H. H. (1979). The d•.lo.me;ngf Ameasure & task-indueid = il

speech. Unpublished master's thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Brenner, M. and Shipp, T. (1982). A and R manifestations 2f

Rl o 9m. Paper presented at the meeting of the Acoustical Society of
America, Chicago.

Brenner, M., Shipp, T., Doherty, T., and Morrissey, P. (1983). Yoaluare 2f
Ss Labrat= and = data. Paper presented at the
Conference on Physiology and Biophysics of Voice, University of Iowa.
(Private collection, W. Jones).

Brenner, M. and Shipp, T. (1988). YgjV UM analysis. Paper presented at 1987

Mental-State Estimation Workshop, Williamsburg, Virginia. (Private collection,
W. Jones).

Cannings, R. (1979). Spch patterns and ai ft workload, InM o2f methods IQ

assess workload. NATO AGARDOGRAPH No. 246, 155-129.

Doherty, E. T. (1989, October). Computers in oie clinics and voe l.abatrie.

Paper presented at the Pacific Voice Conference, California. (Private collection,
W. Jones).

Eddy, D. R. (1989). Selected n performance measures in xeC,f enijronment.

USAFSAM-TR-87-25.

Eddy, D. R. (1990). Prformanc basd on measures of indilial and team Conlex

deciion-midag. Paper presented at the 7 th Command and Control Decision
Aiding Conference, Dayton, Ohio. (Private collection, W. Jones).
Gartner, W. B. and Murphy, M. R. (1976). PilQo workload ad fatigue: Ac
oyf concepts and assessment techniqus. NASA/Ames, NASA TN D-
8365.

Kuroda, I., Fujiwara, 0., Okamura, N., and Utsuki, N. (1976). Method for
determining pilot stress through analysis of voice communication. Aviation.
s and environmental mediine, 47, 528-533.

Ruiz, R., Legros, C., and Guell, A. (1990). Voice analysis to predict the
psychological or physical state of a speaker. Aviation. p And
ienvironmont1
medicine, 266-271.

Schafer, R. W. and Rabiner, L. R. (1975). Parametric representation of speech. In D.

Reddy (Ed.), Spch recognition. Now York: Academic Press. 99-150.

Scherer, K. R. (1981). Speech and emotion states. In J. K. Darby (Ed.), Sech

ealuation i h . New York: Grune and Stratton. 189-220.

Scherer, K. R. (1982). Methods of research ii vocal communication: Paradigms and

parameters. In K. R. Scherer and P. Ekman (Eds.), Handbok Qf method in
nonverbal behavioral reseach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 136-
198.

Schiflett, S. B. and Loikith, G. J. (1980). Voic s s an ly A measure 2f

ocrato workload. Patuxent River, Maryland: Naval Air Test Center,
TM-79-334.

Shingledecker, C. A. and Crabtree, M. S. (1982). Subsidi= radi ommunigIion

tasks f&r workload assessment in H&1 imulans: IL Tak sensitivity
evalaii•n. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Air Force Aerospace Medical
Research Laboratory, AFAMRL-TR-82-57.
 27

APPENDIX A

BROOKS AFB RESEARCH PROTOCOL

 28
RESEARCH PROTOCOL
1. Title: Comparative effects of antihistamines on aircrew under sustained
operations.

2. Project/Task/Work Unit: 272911A8.

3. Principal Investigator/Organization/Telephone: Samuel G. Schiflett,

Ph.D., USAFSAM/VNB/3464; Douglas R. Eddy, Ph.D., NTI, Incorporated/532-
5723.

4. Associate Investigators/Organization: Jonathan French, Ph.D.,

USAFSAM/VNB/3464; Clark Shingledecker, Ph.D, NTI, Incorporated/(513) 254-
3171.

5. Medical Consultant: Chief of Flight Medicine, USAF Clinic, Brooks AFB,

6. Statistician: Joseph R. Fischer, Jr., USAFSAM/VNS/381 1.

7. Objective: The objective of this investigation is to evaluate the sensitivity of

selected C3 and synthetic performance measures to the effects of two antihistamine
medications, Benadryl and Seldane. The measures include mission, system,
individual, and team performance; embedded task workload; situation awareness; and
synthetic cognitive and psychomotor predictors. A second objective is to assess the
magnitude of individual and team performance imyairment produced by the
antihistamines during high- and low-workload C scenarios.

8. Background: The triservice Joint Working Group of Drug-Dependent

Degradation (JWGD3) on military performance is determining the impact of certain
classes of drugs on the performance of aircrews solving a range of mission-related
tasks in stressful environments. One area of interest involves the effects of
antihistamines on complex C3 decision-making performance by teams during sustained
operations. Because of the drowsiness side effects, USAF aircrew personnel are
grounded while taking centrally acting antihistamines for seasonal allergies or non-
allergic rhinitis symptoms. This results in frequent interruption of flying schedules,
loss of training, and disruption of crew rest schedules for non-symptomatic crew
members, especially during sustained operations. Recently, however, new
antihistamines purporting to have no drowsiness side effects have become available to
AF flight surgeons.
Seldane (Terfenadine) is a noncentrally-acting, H- I type antihistamine with
non-sedating properties (Boggs, 1987). Benadryl (Diphenhydraxnine) is also an H-1
type antihistamine, but often produces a sedative effect due to direct central nervous
system (CNS) activation (Spector, 1987). Seldane has shown little or no performance
impairment when compared to the significant performance impairments shown with
 29

centrally-active antihistamines such as Benadryl (Fink & Irwin, 1979; Clarke &
Nicholson, 1978; Nicholson, Smith, & Spencer, 1982; Nicholson & Stone, 1982;
Kulshrestha, Gupta, Turner, & Wadsworth, 1978; Betts, Markman, Debenham,
Mortiboy & KcKevitt, 1984).
All of the studies cited above used simple performance tasks. The impact of the
newer terfeiiadine medication on nomplex tasks is unknown. Demonstration of an
absence of adverse effects on complex tasks under the terfenadine condition could
potentially reduce grounding time by supporting a medical flying waiver. Complex
performance tasks, such as the Complex Cogriiti e Assessment Battery, are beginning
to appear (Samet, Marshall-Mies & Albarian, 1987). They have not, however, been
normed or validated against complex, real-world work environments. At the present
time, assessing the performance effects of these medications can best be accomplished
in a simulation of real-world complex tasks under sustained operations.
Another issue of importance to this study is the assessment of drug effects on
teams solving complex problems. Although there are several models for evaluating
teams, most require inputs from trained observers maldng. subjective ratings. Reliable
detection of subtle effects of medications and fatigue require objective, repeatable
measures. Eddy (1989) and Dyer (1986) both concluded that no one has systematically
developed and empirically tested a comprehensive theory of team performance. As a
result, Eddy and Shingledecker, under contiact to the Air Force, have developed a
hierarchical performance assessment system. This system includes four levels of
metrics that can be interrelated. The levels include measures of mission effectiveiiess,
system performance, human performance, and performance capability. The upper
levels were developed in conjunction with subject matter experts (SMEs) in AWACS
C3 tasks. The system and human performance levels include several types of objective
team measures such as situational awareness, cooperation, cohesiveness, adaptation,
and distribution of work.
The proposed study will use six empirically derived, unclassified, air defense
AWACS scenarios to evaluate two antihistamine medications against a placebo using a
wide variety of performance measures. Three of the scenarios are high workload and
three are low, as verified by subject matter experts and pilot test teams.
9. Experimental Method:
a. Study Design: The proposed study will use a double-blind design with a different
drug administered to each of three groups. The three drugs include Seldane, Benadryl,
and placebo control. Teams of three subjects will be tested together under placebo and
one drug (see Figure 1)in both high- and low-workload conditions over three days (see
Figureof2).these
order Eachtreatments
team willduring
receivethea different
morning andorderearly
of workload so as to balance
evening sessions the 2).
(see Figure
Teams willdaily
shows the be randomly activities,
of testingwithout
schedule assigned It was necessary
repacement include
to one oftothese a placebo
orders. Figg 3
ensure
daytowill in thatequivalence
the performance of the three
condition during the first
groups. Accordingly, testingday
thistestin.g be single-bcnd the experimenters will
be aware drug condition
of thebeginning on .thisof theonly.
day training subjects
Theday and continuing blind to the
will remainthroughout the
drug condition the evenng
study.
 30
Both simple cognitive tests (Perez, Masline, et al., 1987) and complex
laboratory tasks of the CCAB will be administered each day between the C3 scenarios.
Correlations of these test scores with those of the tasks embedded into the scenarios
will provide data to assess the feasibility of predicting complex "real-world"
performance from laboratory tasks under the same medications.
We anticipate that the performance, reserve capacity, and subjective measures
will show degradation with the Benadryl antihistamine, with fatigue (order effect), and
with high workload, when compared with placebo. We do not anticipate any
degradation of performance with the Seldane antihistamine.
b. Assignment: The 552d Air Wing will assign twelve teams of three weapons
directors (subjects may be male or f.reale), who have previously volunteered, to
Brooks AFB to spend their work week in support of this study. Teams will be
randomly assigned to a drug treatment condition and will receive one of the workload
orders shown in Figure 2. Female subjects must have a negative pregnancy test within
the previous 30 days and sign a pregnancy disclaimer.
c. Interventions: Subjects will arrive at Brooks AFB on Saturday or Sunday
evening for a preliminary briefing. Female subjects without proof of a negative
pregnancy test will be tested. Training will take place on Monday for approximately
eight hours. Teams will receive training on six simple computerized tests and two
3
complex tests over approximately four hours. They will also run a three-hour C
' no scenario to familiarize them with the simulated AWACS crewstations and
scenarios; no drugs will be administered. Subjects will ingest one Benadryl and one
Seldane placebo at 2230 or prior to going to sleep.
Teamnc will be tested in two 3 hour scenarios each da, for three days starting
on Tuesday. Figure 3 shows an event time-line of the dose administration and
experimental event schedule for each 24-hr session. Each group will ingest placebos
only during the testing schedule for Tuesday. A randomly assigned team will ingest the
recommended therapeutic dose of either Benadryl plus lactose placebo, Seldanz plus
lactose placebo, or both lactose placebo preparations starting on Tuesday evening.
Total antihistamine/ placebo ingestion for each group will consist of either eight 50mg
Benadryl and ten placebo preparations; four 60mg Seldane and fourteen placebo
preparations; or eighteen placebo preparations.
In order to keep the experiment doubly-blinded, dosing regimens for all groups
will follow diat for both Benadryl and Seldane. Benedryl and Seldane will have
different appearances, hence the concurrent schedules under all test conditions. Each
medication and its rlacebo will look identical to prevent the identification of the drug by
appearance. Therefore, each subject regardless of group will consume 18 capsules.
Before retiring on Monday at 2230, and again on Tuesday at 0600 after a
normal breakfast meal, each team member will ingest two lactose placebos (see Figure
1). Before being driven to the Aircrow Evaluation Sustained Operations Performance
(AESOP) facility, each team member will complete a sleep survey, a profile of moods
survey (POMS), a subjective fatigue rating scale, and a symptom (side effects)
Tuestionnaire. At 0630 the senior director will present a normal AWACS briefing of
te pcoming scenario. Next, the team will begin the first scenario for the day, which
may be either high- or low-workload, depending on the order of their assignment (see
Figure 2). Dosing with placebo will continue QTD throughout the first day of testing,
 31
refer to Figure 3, until the fourth or evening dose, which will be either drug or placebo.
Depending on their group assignment, subjects will ingest either Seldane (60mg) plhs
Benadryl placebo, Benadry, (50rag) plus Seldane placebo, or both lactose placebos
before going to sleep at 2230 Tuesday evening.
At 0600 Wednesday, depending on their group assignment, each team member
will ingest the second dose of their drug treatment with the other placebo (or two
placebos) after their normal breakfast meal. All events of Tuesday will be repeated on
Wednesday and Thursday. They will not teke a drug or placebo Thursday at 2230.
Breakfast, lunch, and a snack will be provided as scheduled during the 24 hr
session. A fatigue/.ood/symptom questionnaire will be completed on each of those
occasions. The cognitive performance task batteries will be presented once each day
between the two scenarios (see Figure 3). The only free time will be in the evenings
and subjects will be expected to eat light, keep their blood alcohoi levels below (0.1%),
and retire by 2230,
Caffeine intake will be.restricted throughout the testing session. Decaffeinated
sodas, herbal tea, and water will be available periodically during the off-task time.
Smoking will be allowed in designated, outside areas, during off-task periods only.
Meals will be as low fat and low protein as possible to prevent the slower absorption of
drug into Lissue due to plasma protein binding.
d. Statistics: Data collected will be evaluated using an ANOVA with two
repeated measures (workload and day) on two grouping factors (drug groups and order
of workload). Measures of team performance and team processes will be evaluated
using a similiar statistical model, with the understanding that there will be fewer
degrees of freedom. Nonparametric tests will be conducted with the mood/symptom
questionnaire data. Multiple linear regression techniques will provide results
concerning the predictive power of simple task measures to complex real-world
measures under the various drug conditions.

10. Requirements for Human Subjects:

a. Hazards: The potential discomforts and risks of the experiment are listed below:
1. Terfenadine (Seldane): A selective antihistamine taken to alleviate the
symptoms of seasonal allergies. The most frequently reported adverse side effect has
been drowsiness, with other less frequent reports of headache, fatigue, dizziness,
nausea, and dryness of the mouth/nose/throat. All side effects listed were, however,
no different in their trequency of report from the placebo group tested (Sorkin and
Heel, 1985).
2. Diphenhydramine (Benadryl): Similar side effects have been reported in the
Physicians Desk Reference (PDR) for this antihistamine. However, one clinical study
reviewed, found reports of weakness, difficulty focusing vision, and dry taste in mouth
as being significantly higher in frequency than the placebo group (Fink and Irwin,
1979).
3. Fatigue from a working three long days may manifest itself as decreased
attention to details, a lack of interest or motivation, an increase in minor physical
 32
complaints, substandard performance, or irritability (USAF Physiological Training
Manual, AFP-160-5, 11-7, 1976).
The potential for experiencing all these side effects is not likely. With the
symptoms questionnaire completed during the three meals each day, the investigators
will have information concerning the incidence of such side effects for medical
consultation, if necessary.
b. Benefits: These subjects will be on normal active duty and will receive no
additional monetary benefits.
c. Source: TAC headquarters will assign all subjects to this study from a group who
have previously volunteered. Subjects will be screened for prior prescription
medication, including antihistamine use and reactions to lactose. Subjects currently on
medication, including antihistamines will be excluded from this study.

d. Privacy: All provisions of the Federal Privacy Act, 5 USC 552a, will be
complied with.
e. Stopping Rule: The subject may at any time elect to discontinue participation.
The Medical Monitor may also stop a subject from participating or break the drug
treatment code. The Command, Control Center will have a copy of the code that can be
broken if a problem arises after normal clinic duty hours.

11. Support personnel/Instrumentation/Equipment: Utilization of the

AESOP facility and all support staff is a requirement of this study. This includes the
four simulated weapons director consoles, the two supporting VAX 780 computers, a
16 channel instrumentation recorder, and two video camera/recorders. Two TV Central
camera operators will also be needed.

12. Voluntary Consent Ftatement: Attachied

13. References:
Betts, T., Markman, D., Debenham, S., Mortiboy, D. and McKevitt, T. (1984).
Effects of two antihistamine drugs on actual driving performance. Biti
Medica Journal, 288, 281-282.
Boggs, P.B. (1987). Clinical Experience with Terfenadine Worldwide Trials.
Proceedings of Current Pharmacotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis and Urticaria.
h&Journal f R irato Disease, 2, 36-46.
Clarke, C.H., and Nicholson, A.N. (1978). Performance studies with antihistamines.
•1•1riihJournl.of Clnia Phraog, L,31-35.

Dyer, J.L. (1986). Annotated flib gnby nd =rtiof-lhe-a review Qf thx &Jgf
=tam I mg s it relates to lnilr. t ARI Research Note 86-18, ARI
Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia, Fort Benning, Georgia.
 33
Eddy, D.E. (1989). Selected m prforance measures in AC Environment--An
nAk0oatnd Bibliog'aphv. Technical Report USAFSAM-TR-87-25, USAF
School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas.
Englund, E.C., Reeves, R.L., Shingledecker, C.A., Thorne, D.R., Wilson, K.P., and
Hegge, F.W. (1985). JLftied Tr-evc Qgitv Pefrac Assessment
BO.Ml (,T,-P.A,- Ik Desind-j.Ct, l of he]
k ly3, JW6D3
MILPERF Report No. 85-1, U.S. Army Research and Development
Command, Fort Detrick, Maryland.
Fink, M., and Irwin, P. (1979). CNS effects of the antihistamines diphenhydramine
and terfenadine (RMI 9918). ,hragL iajAis, 12, 35-44.
Kulshrestha, V.K., Gupta, P.P., Turner, P. and Wadsworth, J. (1978). Some clinical
pharmacological studies with terfenadine, a new antihistamine drug. British
Journal 2f Clinicl Ph~b nlgy, g, 25- 29.
Nicholson, A.N., Smith, P.A., and Sprucer, M.B. (1982). Antihistamines and visual
function: Studies on dynamic acuity and the pupillary response to light. Briish
Jounmal f Clinical Pharaog, 14, 683-690.
Nicholson, A.N., and Stone, B.M., (1986). Antihistamines: Impaired performance
and the tendency to sleep. HurM•an Journal Qf C PharmAg2g., IQ, 27-
pinicA1
32.
Perez, W.A., Masline, P.J., Ramsey, E.G., and Urban, K.E. (1987). Untfird Wi:
- performance assessment
eric gnitiy - Review o .tol'.
Technical Report AAMRL-TR-87-007, Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
Samet, M.G., Marshall-Mies, J.C., and Albarian, G. (1987). E comlex
ggnitxv assessment a (t Finaltes n user
AAC-UM-33212, Analytical Assessments Center, CA: Los Angeles.
Deliverable under Contract MDA903-84-C-0449 to U.S. Army Research
Institute, VA: Alexandria.
Shingledecker, C.A., (1984). A J b for human Rerformance
assessment msearch. Technical Report No. AFAMRL-TR-84-07 1, Air Force
Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
Sorkin, E.M., and Heel, R.C., (1985). Terfenadine: A review of its pharmacodynarnic
properties and therapeutic efficacy. Intratignal ournal 2f Current
CPcp== .
Sand Ph aoln.gy Rjvews, ADIS Press International,
Inc. Newtown, PA.
Spector, S.L. (1987). Ttflith.n.• of anthisamines. Proceedings of Current
Pharmacotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis and Urticaria. Th Journal 2f
Resimlrt 2 , 24-28.
 34
FIGURE 1. Research Design.
Teams of three subjects will receive a different drug treatment, either Benadryl,
Seldane, or placebo. Each group will receive its drug treatment on the following
schedule.
Monday: Training - Placebo at 2230
Tuesday: Testing - Placebo 3 times, then Benadryl at 2230
Wednesday: Testing - Benadryl
Thursday: Testing - Benadryl
Friday: Free, unless needed to make up previous day.
Seldane ru
Monday: Training - Placebo at 2230
Tuesday: Testing . Placebo 3 times, then Seldane at 2230
Wednesday: Testing - Seldane
Thursday: Testing - Seldane
Friday: Free, unless needed to make up previous day.
Placebo ru
Monday: Training - Placebo at 2230
Tuesday: Testing . Placebo
Wednesday: Testing - Placebo
Thursday: Testing - Placebo
Friday: Free, unless needed to make up previous day.
Data collection will normally start no sooner than 1hour after drug administration.
Subjects will consume no more than six capsules daily. Benadryl subjects will
consume no more than 200 mg daily and Seldane subjects will consume no more than
120 mg daily.
 35
FIGURE 2. Complete Design for a Group.

Workload Order 1
Tues Wed Thurs
Drug P D D
Morm Lo Lo Lo
Aft Hi Hi Hi
Workload Order 2
Tues Wed Thurs
Drug P D D
Morn Hi Hi Hi
Aft Lo LO Lo
NOTES:
1. P - Placebo Lo - Low-workload session
D - Drug Hi - High.workload session
2. In the Placebo Group, the drug would be replaced by placebo,
3. If there should be an equipment/software or subject problem, Friday will be
available for testing.
4. Four teams will be divided equally between the two orders.
 36
FIGURE 3. Daily Testing Schedule
Time Activity
0600 Mission Planning & Breakfast
0630 Drug/Placebo, questionnaires
0700 Pre-brief
0730 Run Scenario
1100 Post-brief, Box lunch
1130 Drug/Placebo, briefing, questionnaires
1230 UTC-PAB
1330 CCAB
1430 Mission Planning & snack
1500 Drug/Placebo, questionnaires
1530 Pre-brief
1600 Run Scenario
1930 Post-brief, questionnaires
2030 Supper, free time (see notes)
2230 Drug/Placebo, but not on Thursday
NOTES:Precautions the night before: Bed early (10:30) light dinner. Keep blood
alcohol levels to below legal limits (0.1%).
Breakfast -juice, fruit, toast, water, doughnuts, decaffeinated soft drinks, herbal tea
Lunch - salad, vegetable soup, crackers, cookies, decaffeinated soft drinks, herbal tea,
fruit, no chocolate
 37
Voluntary Consent Statement
1.The purpose of this study is to acquire sensitivity and reliability performance data on
realistic Air Defense scenario tasks under two antihistamines (drugs for allergies) and a
sustained operations schedule. The tasks require differing levels of thought, memory,
decision making, and motor response. The drugs are commercially available allergy or
antihistamine medications. A secondary purpose of this study is to acquire data relating
the actual performance impairment of these antihistamines on these complex, decision-
making tasks under normal, extended-day duty conditions.
2.1 will complete one full training day and three 15 1/2 hr testing sessions (see Figure
1). At the end of training on Monday, I will ingest the first dose of either Seldane
(60mg), Benadryl (50mg), or a placebo. The placebo is a non-active lactose sugar pill.
I understand that if I have lactose sensitivity or am allergic to milk, I should not take
part in this study. I understand that my knowledge or the investigators' knowledge of
my medication treatment may affect my performance. Therefore, neither I nor the
investigators will know which medication (antihistamine or placebo) I am taking. Only
the medical monitor will know that information. I understand that I will be taking no
more than thr recommended therapeutic regimen (four 50mg Benadryl pills, or two
60mg Seldane pills) or the same number of placebo pills during each 15 1/2 hr session,
As an additional protection against identifying which medication I will be given, I will
receive the same number of capsules per day (6) as the total of both drugs, although the
doses may be either all placebo or placebos plus daily doses of one medication,
3.The attached schedule shows (Figure 1) the times that I will take the medication and
when I will fill out questionnaires and perform the tasks. Breakfast and lunch will be
provided at the times shown on the schedule. I will drink only caffeine-free soft drhinks
and will smoke only in desiguated outside areas during off-task time.

4.By taking a recommended therapeutic dose of either antihistamine dining a 24-hr

period, I may experience some discomfort related to some common side effects. The
side effects may include drowsiness, headache, nausea, or dryness of the
mouth/nose/throat. I understand that the potential for experiencing these side effects is
low and by completing the symptoms questionnaire in the morning, afternoon, and
evening, I will give the investigators information concerning the frequency of such side
effects to keep the medical monitor informed.

Volunteer Signature Date

 38
5.If female, I have had a negative pregnancy test within 30 days prior to ingesting the
initial dose. I understand that I will not be allowed, to participate in this study if I am
pregnant. I have read and signed the attached pregnancy disclaimer. I understand that
experience with these drugs in pregnant women is inadequate to determine whether
there exists a potential for harm to the developing fetus. I do not believe I am pregnant
and have signed the attached pregnancy disclaimer.
6.1 will benefit from participation in this study by knowing that I have contributed data
to an important crew performance data base.
7.There is no other alternative procedure that will more effectively acquire this
important information.
8.Records of my participation in this study may only be disclosed according to federal
law, including the Federal Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and its implementing
regulations.
9.1 understand that my entitlement to medical care or compensation in the event of
injury are governed by federal laws and regulations, and if I desire turther information,
I may contact the Cl,'ief of Fight Medicine (536-2859), the Base Legal Office (536-
3301), or the principal/associate investigators (532-5723; 536-3464).
10.The decision to participate in this research is completely voluntary on my part. No
one has coerced or intimidated me into participating in this program. I am participating
because I want to. Dr. Eddy has adequately answered any and all questions I have
about this study, my participation, and the procedures involved. I understand that Dr.
Eddy, Dr. Schiflett, or Dr. French will be available to answer any questions concerning
procedures throughout this study. I understand that if significant new findings develop
during the course of this research that may relate to my decision to continue
participation, I will be informed. I further understand that I may withdraw this consent
at any time and discontinue further participation in this study without prejudice to my
entitlements. I also understand that the medical monitor of this study may terminate my
participation in this study if he or she feels this to be in my best interest.

Volunteer Signature and Social Security Number Date

Witness (not directly involved) Date

Witness (not directly involved) Date

 39
Pregnancy Disclaimer for Female Subjects

I understand that experience with terfenadine (Seldane) and diphenhydramine

(Benadryl) in pregnant women is inadequate to determine whether there exists a
potential for harm to the developing fetus. I have submitted to a pregnancy test within
30 days of starting this study, My test was negative.
However, in the event that I am or become pregnant, I relieve the Air Force of any
and all responsibility for medical complications, associated with such a pregnancy, that
may result from the ingestion of either antihistamine during this study.

Volunteer Signature Date

The pregnancy test for_ is negative.

Name

Physician Date
 40

APPENDIX B

SUBJECT DATA
 41

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

Subject Male/ Age Rank Total E-3 Total Sim

Number Female (Yrs) H[ours Hours
01 M 27 iLt 680 1000
02 M 24 iLt 500 750
07 M 24 ILt 280 200
08 M 24 iLt 285 200
11 F 25 iLt 175 350
12 M 28 ILt 1300 700
13 M 27 iLt 90 175
14 M 24 ILt 145 166
19 M 274pt 510 1000
20 M 25 ILt 1500 500
23 M 30 iLt 950 250
24 M 30 IUt 540 170
29 F 27 IMt 1000 300
30 M 29 1Lt 215 320
35 F 23 2Lt 100 170
36 M 25 ILt 315 230
 42

APPENDIX C

SPEECH ANALYSIS SUMMARY DATA

 43
2OCT/WD1
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JITTER (%) SHIMMER (%)
55.43 179.9 0.47 4.29
41.39 187.36 0.8 10.01
78.47 200.55 0.59 12.53
97.79 219.75 0.55 3.47
119.93 239.86 0.54 8.12
96.1 198.26 0.47 5.42
79.07 189.52 0.54 8.0
WORKLOAD
10 179.9 0.47 4,29
60 187.36 0.8 10.01
130 200.55 0.59 12,53
145 210.82 0.3 7,05
135 217.43 0.47 7.47

2OCT/WD2
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) ITTER (%) SHIMMER (%)
50.48 125.11 0.63 8.76
98.3 134.19 0.57 16.09
91.36 130.51 0.62 12.89
98.39 163.88 0.72 11,93
107.74 170.23 0.61 4.61
115.62 166.64 0.98 7.32
46.79 138.54 0.38 4.25
WORKLOAD
10 125.11 0.63 8.76
60 142.67 1.5 4.56
130 141.32 0.67 7.13
145 163.4 0.8 11.94
135 130.51 0.84 8.61
 44
7AUG/WD1
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JI'IT•ER (%) SHIMMER (%)
6.1 104.24 1.11 10.56
105.3 121.12 0.53 9.12
95.95 152.66 0.47 4.55
94.58 169.69 0.91 5.22
97,48 127.99 0.75 5.93
108,95 142.33 0.99 5.36
30.94 126.87 0.8 24.68
WORKLOAD
10 104.24 1.11 10.56
60 149.9 0.58 3.08
130 152.66 0.47 4.55
145 169.69 0.91 5.22
135 119.11 0.56 6.26

7AUG/WD2
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JITTER (%) SHIMMER (%)
8.25 136.99 1.22 12.18
62.6 170.26 0.61 14.85
89.71 164.14 0.58 11.3
61,29 178.05 0.72 15.02
76.57 148.38 0.34 9.09
59.64 168.35 1.83 15.59
11.5 148.53 1.17 17.18
WORKLOAD
10 136.99 1.22 12.18
60 155.31 1.17 13,44
130 157.84 1.14 13.0
145 168.69 1.69 13.24
135 148.38 0.34 9.09
 45
10JUL/WD1
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JITTER (%) SHIMMER (%)
58.63 129.55 0.95 7.46
54.65 177.06 0.53 5.75
103.28 164.27 0.81 10.32
93.64 164.30 0.81 15.34
86.28 167.20 0.80 6.74
75.0 147.62 0.85 5.61
61.9 169.53 1.71 8.65
WORKLOAD
10 129.83 0.96 6.90
60 135.15 2.33 15.1
130 164.27 0.81 10.32
145 153.73 0.94 11.49
135 167.54 0.44 6.05

10JUL/WD2
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JITTER (%) SHIMMER (%)

33.16 68.44 5.28 12.52

48.03 87.53 1.10 11.45
64.39 147.62 1.25 5.02
65.41 133.35 0.33 6.40
47.81 149.86 1.25 8.34
31.02 115.08 0.81 6.81
21.92 140.89 1.06 7.84
WORKLOAD
10 99.2 0.70 15.53
60 95.19 2.63 9.73
130 147.59 1.27 4.71
145 143.12 0.58 12.53
135 142.94 1.44 11.51
 46
11SEP/WD1
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JITTER (%) SHIMMER (%)
3.97 101.74 0.51 7.30
74.43 107.57 1.01 14.75
80.0 113.88 0.67 16.29
110.32 104.51 1.16 16.33
103.17 123.50 0.68 11.58
75.97 120.83 0.49 7.53
26.25 106.63 0.56 10.75
WORKLOAD
10 101.74 0.51 7.30
60 97.19 0.67 14.22
130 113.88 0.67 16.29
145 104.51 1.16 16.33
135 115.38 0.69 17.25

11SEP/WD2
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JITTER (%) SHIMMER (%)
58.27 111.74 3.12 8.88
89.51 126.05 1.13 9.93
122.14 138.17 0.62 9.58
92.88 126.93 0.63 10.94
128.25 166.93 1.31 8.56
98.04 130.17 0.98 12.74
75.65 145.75 0.54 5.50
WORKLOAD
10 111.74 3.12 8.88
60 124.26 0.48 11.34
130 125.33 0.85 10.8
145 126.93 0.63 10.94
135 166.93 1.31 8.56
 47
14AUG/WD1
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JrI'TER (%) SHIMMER (%)
4.71 186.80 0.60 11.67
41,89 238.67 0.58 5.97
61.48 199.96 1.65 5.29
43.11 227.41 0.89 8,70
111.12 214.44 0.92 6.06
98.61 242.87 0.68 6.82
51.18 222.01 0.76 5.21
WORKLOAD
10 186.80 0.60 11.67
60 238.67 0.58 5.97
130 235.94 0.46 6.44
145 227.41 0.89 8.70
135 210.93 1.14 8.79

14AUG/WD2
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JlTER (%) SHIMMER (%)
13.25 106.26 0.61 8.15
111.88 132.44 0.78 15.39
147.03 145.71 0.69 14.54
111.75 141.85 0.71 14.75
117.46 129.77 0.54 13.1
77.3 129.82 0.41 7.4
47.25 131.04 0.56 13.5
WORKLOAD
10 106.26 0.61 8.15
60 132.44 0.78 15.39
130 121.4. 0.53 9.32
145 141.85 0.71 14.75
135 129.77 0.54 13.1
 48
16OCT/WD1
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JITTER (%) SHIMMER (%)
9.87 189.31 0.82 5.69
50.61 182.67 1.28 9.46
83.72 173.36 2.67 10.35
99.74 196.4 0.74 9.03
97.65 228.44 1.28 10.05
99.71 252.82 0.69 10.61
71.34 216.32 1.58 11.94
WORKLOAD
10 189.31 0.82 .569
60 193.27 1 83 9.47
130 173.36 2.67 10.35
145 178.68 0.72 '1 74
135 182.35 0,45 0i,47

16OCT/WD2
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (H2z) JITER (%) SHIMMER (%)
53.22 120.17 1.04 14.37
49.65 106.77 0.41 11.18
48.42 109.30 1.23 11.70
72.4.0 144.14 0.90 6.12
68.19 132.32 0.63 6.37
74.37 153.06 1.53 7.04
40.4 115.77 1.45 7.69
WORKLOAD
10 120.17 1.04 14.37
60 111.6 0.87 8.75
130 109.3 1.23 11,7
145 11.9.25 1.95 12.4
135 132.32 0.63 6.37
 49
18SEP/WD1
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JIITER (%) SHIMMER (%)
7.78 74.42 5.48 15.87
73.44 97.69 2.11 15.48
76.43 104.15 0,88 12.63
113.21 109.69 0.92 8.37
80.23 140.82 0.45 8.27
94.63 143.81 0.83 8,58
52.05 109.14 1.80 13.83
WORKLOAD
10 74.41 5.52 16.02
60 105.82 1.64 10.43
130 106.89 1.38 13,63
145 98,79 0.67 8.20
135 136.25 1.27 10.0

18SEP/WD2
FUNDAMFENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JrlTER (%) SHIMMER (%)
16.25 93.31 8.97 7.26
44.59 117.46 1.64 16,61
93.66 130.62 1.58 15.47
63.29 113.28 0.53 5.85
85.68 137.87 2.37 18.6
67.20 147.85 0.99 9.24
47.77 108.26 1.60 17.31
WORKLOAD
10 93.64 7.72 10.19
60 116.94 1.69 17.95
130 113.03 1.33 16.40
145 110.73 1.30 16.26
135 143.29 1.03 14.01
 50
21AUG/WD1
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JITTER (%) SHIMMER (%)
40.49 169.11 1.09 11.42
53.61 152.37 1.21 11.03
74.43 187.84 1.09 7.42
74.77 169.55 0.87 7.09
76.11 180.77 0.72 7.97
89.11 197.59 1.10 5.99
57.68 203.97 0.78 4.65
WORKLOAD
10 169.11 1.09 11.42
60 152.37 1.21 11.03
130 187.84 1.09 7.42
145 181.51 1.07 7.38
135 155.45 1.25 17.13

21AUG/WD2
FUNDAMENTAL
DURATION FREQUENCY (Hz) JILTER (%) SHIMMER (%)
16.94 144.41 0.64 7.63
116.26 145.89 0.61 6.61
125.84 181.61 0.71 6.54
89.36 177.79 0.47 6.29
111.79 195.02 0.99 5.43
84.08 183.18 0.28 5.05
25.84 148.93 0.57 5,29
WORKLOAD
10 144.41 0.64 7.63
60 172,04 0.35 11.13
130 164.61 0.35 3.95
145 177.79 0.47 6.29
135 158.46 0.34 10.89
 51

APPENDIX D

STATISTICAL RESULTS FROM ANOVA,

REGRESSION, AND CORRELATION DATA
 52

ANOVA TABLES

MODEL.
ITls
[sorceFREQUENCY s ______

Subject 15 81594.009 5439.6006 26.96 <.0001

Levels 4 6157.7187 1539.4297 7.63 <.0001 *
Error 60 12105.933 201.76555

MODEL. JITTER
Source df SS MS F P
Subject 15 10.694755 .71298367 1.96 .0338
Levels 4 2.2259550 .55648875 1.53 .2040
Error 60 21.774445 .36290742
mi

MODEL. SHIMMER
Source df SS MS F P
Subject 15 447.23746 .29815831 3.24 .0006
Levels 4 15.036670 3.7591675 .41 .8021
Error 60 552.71289 9.2118815 1

DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR VARIABLE: FREQUENCY

DUNCAN GROUPING @

.05 .01 .001 Mean N Workload

A A A 154.806 16 H2
A A A 153.565 16 Hi
A A A 1501-988 16 Med
A A A B 144,386 16 Low
B - m
B -
B 129.554 16 Baseline
 53

RELATIONSHIP OF MODEL WITH FREQUENCY

SUBJECTS N SLOPE P-VALUE R-VALUE
20CT/WD1 5 .247806 .0229 .928
20CT/WD2 5 .145664 .3046 .581
7AUG/WD1 5 .275200 .2799 .605
7AUG/WD2 5 .148649 .1505 .743
10JUL/WD1 5 .262980 .0325 .909
1OJUL/WD2 5 .410135 .0249 .924
11SEP/WD1 5 .090359 .2110 .675
11SEP/WD2 5 .211188 .2936 .591
14AUG/WD1 5 .198577 .3444 .543
14AUG/WD2 5 .162170 .1785 .711
160CT/WD1 5 -. 107275 .1150 -. 786
16OCT/WD2 5 .026703 .7803 .173
18SEP/WDI 5 .104906 .5068 .398
18SEP/WD2 5 .205509 .2420 .643
21AUG/WDI 5 .095448 .5525 .359
21AUG/WD2 5 .136216 .2662 .618
POOLED DATA so .163390 .0001 .616
 54

RELATIONSHIP OF MODEL WITH JITTER

SUBJECTS N SLOPE P-VALUE R-VALUE
20CT/WD1 5 -. 00117139 .5375 -. 372
20CT/WD2 5 -. 00097604 .7944 -. 162
7AUG/WD1 5 -. 00246405 .3564 -. 532
7AUG/WD2 5 -. 00088671 .8640 -. 107
10JUL/WD1 5 -. 00549601 .4499 -. 447
10JUL/WD2 5 -. 00196950 .8203 -. 142
11SEP/WDI 5 .00279956 .2175 .668
11SEP/WD2 5 -. 01268990 .1957 -. 692
14AUG/WDI 5 .00226797 .4119 .481
14AUG/WD2 5 -. 00048439 .6711 -. 261
160CT/WD1 5 .00052360 .9579 .033
160CT/WD2 5 .00299056 .5640 .350
18SEP/WD1 5 -. 02006830 .0333 -. 908
18SEP/WD2 5 -. 00758097 .0123 -. 953
21AUG/WDI 5 .00006826 .9378 )49
21SEP/WD2 5 -. 00141249 .2426 -. 642
POOLED DATA 80 -. 00290936 .0245 -. 323
 55

RELATIONSHIP OF MODEL WITH SHIMMER

SUBJECTS N SLOPE P-VALUE R-VALUE

2OCT/WD1 5 .02421930 .4422 .454
20CT/WD2 5 .01784680 .5166 .390
7AUG/WD1 5 -. 02646480 .3386 -. 548
7AUG/WD2 5 -. 00624909 .7422 -. 204
10JUL/WDI 5 .00093246 .9810 .015
10JUL/WD2 5 -. 03361370 .3991 -. 493
11SEP/WD1 5 .06441980 .0211 .932
IISEP/WD2 5 .00473348 .7257 .216
14AUG/WDI 5 -. 01673710 .4673 -. 432
14AUG/WD2 5 .02146620 .5188 .388
!6OCT/WDI 5 .01112780 .5844 .333
160CT/WD2 5 -. 02156790 .5039 -. 401
i8SEP/WDI 5 .00680465 .7546 .194
18SEP/WD2 5 .02184390 .4123 .481
21AUG/WD1 5 -. 00706100 .8680 -. 104
21AUG/WD2 5 -. 01377200 .6684 -. 264
POOLED DATA 80 .00299555 .6406 .103
 56

RELATIONSHIP OF DURATION WITH FREQUENCY

SUBJECTS N SLOPE P-VALUE R-VALUE
2OCT/WD1 9 .637035 .0122 .785
20CT/WD2 10 .411485 .0582 .615
7AUG/WDI 9 .334316 .0850 .604
7AUG/WD2 10 .224678 .1611 .479
10JUL/WD1 10 .347294 .2550 .398
10JUL/WD2 11 .713576 .2381 .388
11SEP/WD1 9 .139764 .1258 .549
11SEP/WD2 9 .442458 .0697 .629
14AUG/WDI 9 .239264 .2853 .401
14AUG/WD2 8 .218852 .0229 .778
16OCT/WD1 10 .325710 .2876 .374
16OCT/WD2 9 1.217140 .0006 .912
1BSEP/WDI 11 .150450 .4596 .249
18SEP/WD2 10 .623172 .0093 .769
21AUG/WDI 9 .618565 .1125 .566
21AUG/WD2 10 .286219 .0631 .606
POOLED DATA 153 .271899 .0001 .591
 57

RELATIONSHIP Or DURATION WITH JITTER

SUBJECTS N SLOPE P-VALUE R-VALUE
20CT/WD1 9 -. 00216285 .3123 -. 381
20CT/WD2 10 .00352376 .4285 .283
7AUG/WD1 9 -. 00314425 .1594 -.511
7AUG/WD2 10 -. 00944008 .1223 -. 521
10JUL/WD1 10 -. 01607730 .1374 -. 504
10JUL/WD2 11 -. 02431560 .4208 -. 271
11SEP/WD1 9 .00393017 .0852 .604
11SEP/WD2 9 -. 01622520 .2262 -. 448
14AUG/WD1 9 .00228537 .6111 -. 582
14AUG/WD2 8 .00092670 .4147 .337
16OCT/WD1 10 -. 00232595 .7831 -. 100
16OCT/WD2 9 .00000335 .9998 0.000
18SEP/WD1 11 -. 02977910 .0005 -. 870
18SEP/WD2 10 -. 00529203 .5609 -. 210
21AUG/WD1 9 -. 00405063 .3550 -. 351
21AUG/WD2 10 .00156169 .4596 .265
POOLED DATA 153 -. 00613988 .0171 -. 214
 58

RELATIONSHIP OF DURATION WITH SHIMMER

SUBJECTS N SLOPE P-VALUE R-VALUE

2OCT/WD1 9 -. 0246728 .5970 -. 205
20CT/WD2 10 .0473866 .4065 .296
7AUG/WD1 9 -. 1217910 .0431 -. 682
7AUG/WD2 10 -. 0370742 .2177 -. 428
10JUL/WD1 10 .0108384 .8853 .053
10JUL/WD2 11 -. 1034700 .1170 -. 500
IISEP/WDI 9 .0554770 .1610 6510
IISEP/WD2 9 .0186814 .5987 .204
14AUG/WDI 9 -. 0393599 .1000 -. 582
14AUG/WD2 8 .0428311 .1351 .576
16OCT/WD1 10 .0290656 .2041 .439
16OCT/WD2 9 -. 1202780 .1811 -. 490
18SEP/WD1 11 -. 0276229 .3642 -,304
18SEP/WD2 10 .0331399 .6182 .180
21AUG/WD1 9 -. 1607710 .0407 -,687
21AUG/WD2 10 .0048519 .e367 .075
POOLED DATA 153 -. 0164525 .3424 -. 124
 59

VITA

Name: William Archer Jones, Jr,

Date of Birth: April 26, 1963

Place of Birth: Bloomfield, Connecticut

Permanent Address: 14 Candlewood Drive

Bloomfield, Connecticut 06002

Education: Bachelor of Science, 1985

United States Air Force Academy
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Major: Human Factors Engineeiing

Master of Science, 1990

Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
Major: Industrial Engineering

Organizations/Societies: Human Factors Society

Tau Beta Pi Honor Society
Alpha Pi Mu Honor Society

Profession: Captain, United States Air Force

Experience: Foreign Weapons/Human Factors Analyst

Foreign Technology Division
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
June, 1985 to August, 1988

View publication stats